-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In theory NATO is still supposed to protect Europe from untold dangers. The list of likely aggressors is small—whatever their neighbors say about Germany, Serbia, Iran, and China, none look to be would-be conquerers of Europe. Which leaves Russia.
Yet France plans on supplying Moscow with an advanced ship, the Mistral. Reports the New York Times:
The boxy, 600-foot-long Mistral vessel is an advanced helicopter carrier equipped with a command center and hospital for military landing operations. It is the first major arms purchase by Russia abroad and the first sale by a NATO country, illustrating the shifting role of an alliance once conceived to counter Soviet military power.
One of the sticking points in negotiations was whether the deal would include advanced naval weapons and defense systems. In the months leading to the deal, a series of French officials softened their stand, saying that France was willing to supply the technology without restrictions.
Indeed, Paris has been treating the sale like a sporting event. The big contract means France is the winner. Explains the Times:
Since a low-key Christmas Eve announcement of a French sale of assault ships to Russia, high-level government deal makers have boasted about the multimillion-euro deal like it was a soccer game triumph. “France wins,” declares the Web site for the Élysée Palace.
Of course, the likelihood of Russian aggression is small and the Mistral sale alone won’t change Europe’s balance of power. But just what is NATO for if its members are arming the one country which it is directed against? The U.S. has better things to do with its manpower and money than defend nations which don’t believe they need defending.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/30/with-france-arming-russia-what
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike Rogers| 12.30.10 @ 8:12AM
Toujour la putain!
Anyone with a knowledge of arms sales will know that principles don't often come into it, but where France and arms sales are concerned there is a long history of willingness to arm despots and tyrants.
With France, it is not "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but rather the enemy of my friend is my customer!
The British well remember having to deal with French Exocet missiles when Argentina attacked the Falkland islands a few years back.
Also don't forget that France pulled out of NATO and tried to create a European defense force. This is not an ally.
Curly Smith| 12.30.10 @ 8:41AM
These two articles tell you all that you need to know:
Russian gas supplies to France cut by 70 percent (Jan 2009): http://uk.reuters.com/article/.....0420090106
Europe's Strategic Dependence on Russian Energy (Nov 2007): http://www.heritage.org/resear.....ian-energy
You don't have to have tanks or troops to control another country. Think of it as PutinCare, complete with mandatory end-of-life counseling.
Martin Owens| 12.30.10 @ 9:55AM
Russia bought ships from the French back in the 19th century because its shipbuilding industry was too backward under the old Romanov dynasty
After a hundred years of Soviet progress, they have advanced to.... buying ships from France, under Putin, a Tsar without the legitimacy. Plus ca change, as the French say...
Tish | 12.30.10 @ 10:32AM
France is always France and reliably untrustworthy.
Al Adab| 12.30.10 @ 10:42AM
OK I got it.
France arms Russia
Russia arms Iran
We give uranium mines to Russia (start treaty)
Russia arms Iran
Iran hits Israel (and US)
Left is happy
World anarchy follows
Casey Abell| 12.30.10 @ 11:01AM
I'm all for letting the Russians have France as an ally. That should finish off Russia once and for all.
Kent Lyon| 12.30.10 @ 11:54AM
The first fruits of the the New START arms treaty! NATO is collapsing. Look for other European countries to drift into the Russian fold as America stiffs and insults them. Sarkozy may be doing this because of prior Obama snubs. He thinks Obama is an idiot, and would prefer to deal with a totalitarian who is worthy of the name, e.g., Putin, rather than the simpering weakling who is Obama. Adieu, France. Adieu, NATO. As the local preacher said to the new sheriff in "Blazing Saddles": "You're on your own!" Let's see if Obama can abduct himself out of trouble by holding a gun to his own head and threatening to blow his own head off in order to escape the wrath of the global community. Or does that just work in Mel Brooks movies. It does kind of feel like we're actually in a Mel Brooks movie, doesn't it? Where's Gene Wilder when we need him?
PattyMor| 12.30.10 @ 12:35PM
Ronald Reagan warned the Euros about letting Russia build the pipeline into their terrority. Now the coissant crowd is literally conspiring with the Ruskies. I agree, its time to pull the plug on NATO and let them defend themselves. C'est tout. With a 14 T debt, we can no longer afford it.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 12.30.10 @ 1:27PM
Yet more BS from the utterly discredited Doug Bandow. NATO is NOT directed against Russia and its Secretary General, as well as the rulers of individual NATO countries, have embraced Russia as a partner (Russia is not a trustworthy partner, but that's another story).
NATO, as its strategic concept states, is meant to defend Europe against ANY threats, including Iran, Syria, and terrorists organizations. And yes, Iran is a real, growing threat to Europe.
Sokratez| 12.30.10 @ 4:22PM
What nonsense. NATO was created,and dominated, by the United States as a shield against the Soviet Union's "threat" to Western Europe, and as a pretext for permanently occupying Italy, Germany, and France, thereby controlling their international policies. Iran isn't the slightest threat to any
one, as Iraq wasn't after the 1991 war and 10 years of criminal sanctions and continuous bomb ings of "no fly zone" targets. NATO should be dissolved. The Cold War ended nearly 20 years ago. The bases maintained there should be sold or offered to the host governments.
handbags | 12.30.10 @ 9:44PM
thanks your share!
RonL | 12.31.10 @ 4:47AM
"With France Arming Russia, What is NATO For?"
1. Keeping the West Unified and as a counterbalance to the EU/Eurabia/Fourth Riech/Brussels Krytocrats.
2. Fighting Islamist.
Next question.
Pooh the Russian Bear| 12.31.10 @ 11:42AM
Invented a tale about an aggressive Russia, and discuss it. Russian does not believe in the Russian attack as you believe. This paranoia .. Handicap for a real threat.
It's a really funny..
Some russian| 12.31.10 @ 6:44PM
Official NATO position:
"We are not against Russia"
Official US position:
"MD system in europe is not against Russia"
But in real life:
"But just what is NATO for if its members are arming the one country which it is directed against?"
Hypocrisy as it is.